[WikiEN-l] Danny's contest

Thu Nov 23 11:00:44 UTC 2006

"Larry Pieniazek" wrote

> Well I'm not sure how to respond to that exactly, other than to say that we
> judged the entries that turned up based on the criteria we developed (which
> were in turn based on the goals, to demonstrate referencability...) Those
> entries were the best at it.
> 
> Not that it's relevant (so why did I mention it? Dunno) but of the three
> judges that actively judged entries, I was the only boy.

If one actually worries about systemic bias as pervasive, one also presumably reinforces the dictum that Voting is Evil. Because it generally adds to the middle-of-the-road of whatever is there, rather than addresses what is missing.

If you take copious referencing as a criterion, you will favour areas where reference books already proliferate. Now, I have nothing against military history, I hasten to add. I have worked myself on clean-up of Japanese military history (the bizarre Peruvian contributions). Good references there would be excellent. The reason I bothered is that coverage of certain things (e.g. the Second Sino-Japanese War) is just inherently going to be worse than that of each battle for a Pacific island, given the slant of what reference material exists in English.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information